Slimcoin | First Proof of Burn currency | Decentralized Web

[johnwhitestar]

The developer has reached the first step we've agreed with him upon and released the document in which he is analyzing SLM code. Please let me know what do you think.

One other thing that might be useful, pre-computed EXT/bip32 keys for Slimcoin - as committed to Ian Coleman's BIP39 repos: https://github.com/iancoleman/bip39/blob/863eee8ed754e4aebd5059b712deb4fca8709c27/src/js/bitcoinjs-extensions.js#L153

Cheers

Graham

Thank you!

[johnwhitestar]

Do we have any testnet node available or running at the moment?
The developer asked me to create at least 4 nodes for the testnet for its work. I have some node available, but before I distract all the 4 from the main net I'm asking, just in case.

[d5000]

Do we have any testnet node available or running at the moment?
The developer asked me to create at least 4 nodes for the testnet for its work. I have some node available, but before I distract all the 4 from the main net I'm asking, just in case.

My testnet node was not running in the last days. It is running the "hardcap" version so it would in its current state be not useful for testing the update (I think the hard cap should be implemented later so its testing does not interfere with the PPC 0.10 upgrade, and it would be much more convenient after the upgrade as PPC 0.10 should have a proper soft fork mechanism).

I can activate the "Standard" 0.6 SLM client on the testnet node after September 10/11 (because of a scheduled maintenance of my VPS), or wait until the first alpha of the PPC-0.10-based version is out.

To standardize terminology (I have planned to update this thread to include info about the SLM upgrade, and also change the thread title): Should we call the new version Slimcoin 0.7? (This would be the logical step, as the last one was 0.6) Or would it make sense to directly call it Slimcoin 1.0 to emphasize the code changes? (This would however be a pretty bold move as we would show the world that 1.0 is the first mature, "really stable" version) Both variants have their pros and cons, so I would like to hear the opinion of @everyone (I'm slightly leaning to simply follow our current numbering scheme and call it 0.7).

Ah, and I think to use a later release candidate of PPC 0.10 as a base, like you suggested is a good idea, at least in the case in some weeks we still don't see a release on the horizon. PPC has a paid full time developer, and in the past he released RCs very frequently.

[gjhiggins]

Do we have any testnet node available or running at the moment?
The developer asked me to create at least 4 nodes for the testnet for its work. I have some node available, but before I distract all the 4 from the main net I'm asking, just in case.

That's a bit ... unusual. IME, such a network is trivial to set up on single m/c, all that's required is that each node has its own datadir and is configured with a different port number (with port= and rpcport=).

I approach this by having (say) 4 different datadir directories (typically datadir-a, datadir-b and so on) each with its own slimcoin.conf setting the ports  (typically to, 60000/60001, 60002/60003, and so on) cross-connected (with port=60000,connect=128.0.0.1:60002 and port=60002,connect=128.0.0.1:60000 and so on) and run the clients with -datadir=`pwd`/datadir-a,  -datadir=`pwd`/datadir-b, etc. I find this arrangement very handy for experimentation as I can trivially start/stop the clients and clear out the datadirs after each experiment with a couple of simple bash commands.

For anyone who may be interested in running their own local Slimcoin testnet network, create the four datadir-? dirctories and add a slimcoin.conf to each:

basic slimcoin.conf:

Code:

testnet=1
reservebalance=0.00
debug=1
listen=1
server=1
txindex=1
fastindex=1
genproclimit=2
gen=0
printcreation=0
printstakemodifier=0
printselectcoin=0
rpcuser=slimcoinrpcuser
rpcpassword=slimcoinrpcuser
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
maxconnections=3
upnp=0

added to the basic slimcoin.conf for datadir-a:

Code:

port=60000
rpcport=60001
connect=128.0.0.1:60002
connect=128.0.0.1:60004
connect=128.0.0.1:60006

added to the basic slimcoin.conf for datadir-b:

Code:

port=60002
rpcport=60003
connect=128.0.0.1:60000
connect=128.0.0.1:60004
connect=128.0.0.1:60006

added to the basic slimcoin.conf for datadir-c:

Code:

port=60004
rpcport=60005
connect=128.0.0.1:60000
connect=128.0.0.1:60002
connect=128.0.0.1:60006

added to the basic slimcoin.conf for datadir-d:

Code:

port=60006
rpcport=60007
connect=128.0.0.1:60000
connect=128.0.0.1:60002
connect=128.0.0.1:60004

Then just start 4 clients, the first with -datadir=`pwd`/datadir-a, the second with -datadir=`pwd`/datadir-b and so on, and you've got yourself a neat little local testnet chain to play with.

Just sayin'

Cheers

Graham

[gavrilo77]

Same way i am doing with .bat

slimcoin-qt.exe -datadir=Data

Data is folder with wallet and blockchain

AS many time just different rpcport

[johnwhitestar]

Then just start 4 clients, the first with -datadir=`pwd`/datadir-a, the second with -datadir=`pwd`/datadir-b and so on, and you've got yourself a neat little local testnet chain to play with.

Maybe you have a VPS with 4 GB of Ram, or are you speaking about your local computer?
Because slimcoind is using almost all the RAM on my 1GB Ram VPSs.

[gjhiggins]

Maybe you have a VPS with 4 GB of Ram, or are you speaking about your local computer?

Hint:

a neat little local testnet chain to play with.

Because slimcoind is using almost all the RAM on my 1GB Ram VPSs.

On testnet? Something horribly wrong there. But be that as it may, in general a 1Gb VPS is too under-powered for altcoin development.

Cheers

Graham

[johnwhitestar]

Maybe you have a VPS with 4 GB of Ram, or are you speaking about your local computer?

Hint:

a neat little local testnet chain to play with.

In my understanding you can do the same thing on a VPS, and from the point of view of that VPS it will be still a local testchain, or?

[gjhiggins]

In my understanding you can do the same thing on a VPS, and from the point of view of that VPS it will be still a local testchain, or?

Local to the VPS, yes - that's entailed in the connect=127.0.0.1:<port> configuration statements.

Cheers

Graham

[johnwhitestar]

In my understanding you can do the same thing on a VPS, and from the point of view of that VPS it will be still a local testchain, or?

Local to the VPS, yes - that's entailed in the connect=127.0.0.1:<port> configuration statements.

Cheers

Graham

I've got it, thanks.

[johnwhitestar]

Should we call the new version Slimcoin 0.7? (This would be the logical step, as the last one was 0.6) Or would it make sense to directly call it Slimcoin 1.0 to emphasize the code changes? (This would however be a pretty bold move as we would show the world that 1.0 is the first mature, "really stable" version) Both variants have their pros and cons, so I would like to hear the opinion of @everyone (I'm slightly leaning to simply follow our current numbering scheme and call it 0.7).

I like the idea of v 1.0, but as you said following the current numbering is a bit more preferable.

Of course for SLM the upgrade we will possibly release is a great step ahead, but from the point of view of the general cryptoworld development we are just trying to catch the train that was about to leave. So more sober numbering is preferable, it will let understand to the more attentive people that we know where we are right now.

We can reserve 1.0 to the possible improvement of the PoB algorithm, for instance.  

[gjhiggins]

Do we have any testnet node available or running at the moment?

144.76.118.44

Cheers

Graham

[johnwhitestar]

Do we have any testnet node available or running at the moment?

144.76.118.44

Cheers

Graham

Thank you very much again!

For the moment the developer has taken into consideration your suggestion about the local testnet, should he need more resources I'll let include your node into our "package" 

[Tomohisa]

Because slimcoind is using almost all the RAM on my 1GB Ram VPSs.

On testnet? Something horribly wrong there. But be that as it may, in general a 1Gb VPS is too under-powered for altcoin development.

Cheers

Graham

I have a question: how many testnet clients you are able to fit in a single VPS with 2GB? Does the resource need to run a testnet client is more power-hungry than when you just running it as a simple node so 1GB RAM VPS is unstable to do it? As johnwhitestar said about his VPS with 1GB RAM is almost full...

[gjhiggins]

I have a question: how many testnet clients you are able to fit in a single VPS with 2GB? Does the resource need to run a testnet client is more power-hungry than when you just running it as a simple node.

Dunno for sure, don't have a 2Gb VPS to check it on, most of the RAM usage will be the db index which at 2.1 million blocks is probably a bit heavy, staking large bags is also compute-intensive and probably demands RAM to suit. Testnet otoh has 0 blocks (there isn't a legacy testnet chain to preserve atm) so will consume far fewer resources. I'll make a guess at two nodes at least, maybe the full four.

Cheers

Graham

[0verseer]

Some tard try to fake the Slimcoin ANN thread and inject a download link with malware. As I posted this, his thread is still up.

Fake ANN thread link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5273887.0
His pathetic github in the link: https://github.com/Slim-coin/qt

edited: Thank god, it got deleted.

[johnwhitestar]

Some tard try to fake the Slimcoin ANN thread and inject a download link with malware. As I posted this, his thread is still up.

Fake ANN thread link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5273887.0
His pathetic github in the link: https://github.com/Slim-coin/qt

Thank you for the info, reported to moderators.

edited: Thank god, it got deleted.

Yep 

[gjhiggins]

Because I suspect that folks believe that sticking, syncing wallets are a Slimcoin-only problem, it's not, it's in Slimcoin's Peercoin heritage. This from the peercoin forum back on April 15th this year in response to someone reporting a wallet sticking while syncing:

Make sure you don't unlock your wallet for minting until it has finished syncing. If that doesn't work, make sure you still have the wallet backup and delete the whole folder, open the client fresh and wait for it to sync from scratch, then replace the wallet.dat file and open with the -rescan tag.

And that's a Peercoin 0.8 Core 0.16 wallet that's sticking while syncing because of premature staking.

I came across the post when confirming that the upgrade from Peercoin 0.7 to 0.8 was a hard fork (0.8 Peercoin hardfork task list), something that I think might be a bit of an organisation problem for Slimcoin, given the relatively large number of active addresses of uncontactable SLM hodlers.

Cheers

Graham

[johnwhitestar]

All my seeding nodes are stuck at block 2197245, since yesterday. What is the most efficient way to get them on the track?

Edit: seems like I'm on the wrong blockchain, I'm seeing the following message about the last block

Code:

ERROR: CheckProofOfBurn() : INFO: prev block not in main chain

Downloading the blockchain requires weeks on my VPSs  - wouldn't really like to do it again.


Edit: solved by deleting .slimcoin folder on all my VPSs and copying a .slimcoin folder from another server that had a relatively recent blockchain version.

Seems like if the server is being shut down suddenly the last block remains corrupted and the synchronizing stops. It's just a guess, of course.  

[johnwhitestar]

From here seems like Slimcoin has been listed on hoo.com, SLM/USDT pair, but if I go to the site I'm not seeing SLM there.